82,247
edits
Intersectionality: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a| | {{a|squirrels| | ||
[[File:Squirrel.png|450px|thumb|center|A member of the squirrelacracy, yesterday]] | [[File:Squirrel.png|450px|thumb|center|A member of the squirrelacracy, yesterday]] | ||
}}{{d|Intersectionality|/ˌɪntə(ː)ˈsɛkʃənælɪti/|n}} | }}{{d|Intersectionality|/ˌɪntə(ː)ˈsɛkʃənælɪti/|n}} | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
|<center>66%</center> | |<center>66%</center> | ||
|- | |- | ||
|'''Portion sharing all''' '''group properties''' | |'''Portion sharing ''all''''' '''group properties''' | ||
|<center>'''16.085%'''</center> | |<center>'''16.085%'''</center> | ||
|<center>'''0.006%'''</center> | |<center>'''0.006%'''</center> | ||
|- | |- | ||
|'''Portion sharing at least''' '''one group property''' | |'''Portion sharing ''at least''''' '''''one''''' '''group property''' | ||
|<center>'''99.993%'''</center> | |<center>'''99.993%'''</center> | ||
|<center>'''83.914%'''</center> | |<center>'''83.914%'''</center> | ||
|} | |} | ||
The group properties provide interesting colour. Just 16% of the total squirrels meet ''all'' the in-group criteria to qualify as fully dominant squirrels; but only 0.006% — fewer than one in 15,000 squirrels — have ''none'' of the in-group criteria, and therefore suffers maximal intersectional disadvantage. That leaves almost 84% of the population being a member of at least one of the out-groups, so having ''some'' kind of disadvantage, and almost all of them (99.994%) having at least one in-group membership. | The group properties provide interesting colour. Just 16% of the total squirrels meet ''all'' the in-group criteria to qualify as fully dominant squirrels; but only 0.006% — fewer than one in 15,000 squirrels — have ''none'' of the in-group criteria, and therefore suffers maximal intersectional disadvantage. That leaves almost 84% of the population being a member of at least one of the out-groups, so having ''some'' kind of disadvantage, and almost all of them (99.994%) having at least one in-group membership. | ||
An individual squirrel’s group membership can be relevant in (at least) two situations: when the squirrel enjoys a ''benefit'', and when it suffers a ''disadvantage''. The temptation is to attribute an benefit to ''in''-group membership; and a disadvantage to ''out''-group membership: the converse (that, in essence, a social minorityship would deliver a benefit over those in the majority, or ''vice versa'') seems intuitively wrong. | |||
Now if we attribute a misfortune to out-group membership, but a fortune to in group membership. | Now if we attribute a misfortune to out-group membership, but a fortune to in group membership. | ||